Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Pignataro et al
Filing
18
DECISION and ORDERED, that Plaintiff submit a memorandum of law addressing the Courts subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 within thirty (30) days in order to proceed with this action in federal court. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on April 28, 2016. (sas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
Plaintiff,
-against-
1:15-cv-1041 (LEK/DJS)
LOUIS J. PIGNATARO, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION and ORDER
Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Plaintiff”) commenced the present action against
Defendants Louis J. Pignataro (“Pignataro”) and the Bank of New York Mellon (the “Bank”)
(collectively “Defendants”) pursuant to the New York Real Property Actions and Proceeding Law.
Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). On November 10, 2015, fourteen days after both Defendants’ answer
deadlines expired, Plaintiff requested an entry of default from the Clerk of the Court, which was
granted on November 18, 2015. Dkt. Nos. 8; 9 (“Entry of Default”). Presently before the Court is
Plaintiff’s Motion for default judgment. Dkt. No. 11 (“Motion”).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff exclusively raises state law claims. Plaintiff accordingly claims
that subject matter jurisdiction exists through diversity of citizenship. Compl. ¶ 7; see also 28
U.S.C. § 1332. However, Plaintiff’s discussion of the citizenship of the parties strongly suggests
that the parties are not diverse. Pignataro is alleged to be a citizen of New York, and the Bank is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, which makes it a citizen of
both Delaware and New York. Compl. ¶¶ 3-4; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff claims that
it is an LLC “directly owned by two Delaware limited liability companies which are directly owned
by one Delaware Corporation.” Compl. ¶ 2. A limited liability company takes the citizenship of its
members. Bayerische Landesbank, N.Y. Branch v. Aladdin Capital Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42, 49
(2d Cir. 2012). Thus, assuming that “ownership” of Plaintiff and of the two intermediate LLCs
mentioned in the Complaint refers to Plaintiff’s members, Plaintiff is considered a citizen of at least
Delaware. Given that complete diversity is an absolute requirement for jurisdiction, Strawbridge v.
Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1804), the Court would not possess subject matter jurisdiction
over this action.
However, before dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will
allow Plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision and Order to submit a memorandum
that more specifically demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that diversity of citizenship
exists. Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). Defendants shall have ten
(10) days thereafter to file a response. If Plaintiff fails or elects not to file a memorandum, the
Clerk shall dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, at which point Plaintiff would be
able to file an action for their state law claims in state court.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that Plaintiff submit a memorandum of law addressing the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 within thirty (30) days in order to proceed with
this action in federal court; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Decision and Order on all
parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
April 28, 2016
Albany, New York
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?